User talk:Archduk3/Archive 16
Production years Please note that you left about 400 double redirects sitting around in the DB from your page moves (all the "month year" redirects), and all of the interwiki links on the other languages for each year have to be fixed now too. Also, the discussion was that we weren't going to rename templates, simply update them to use the "corrected" yearlink format. I'm not sure why you began doing that method of things too... -- sulfur (talk) 11:24, February 18, 2016 (UTC) :I'm aware that this is a big move and it was done bit messily, but really only you could have done it cleaner, and I felt like making some changes, which is enough of rarity these days that I figured I should indulge before my revulsion to what wikia has made this place overpowered it. I'm sorry if the time constraints I'm working under left things in a "less than optimal state", but I didn't leave anything outright "broken". :Eventbrowser hasn't been a good name for years, and since I figured out a better way to do the same thing while I was looking at it, I figured "why not now" considering everything else I was doing. I had actually planed to finish changing those at least, but RL things came up. - 14:52, February 18, 2016 (UTC) Category:Starfleet Academy personnel Hi, please see my comment on Category talk:Starfleet Academy personnel. I'd also like to point out that all the cadets weren't on the original list. Kennelly (talk) 15:31, March 13, 2016 (UTC) Jonthan Archer We have Jonathan Archer (alternate reality). So he had to be alive in the prime reality at least in 2222, Montgomery Scott's birth year. Why? Because theoretically (and very theoretically) the incident could have taken place before the Alternate reality split, but no earlier than Scott's birthdate. He simply can't have died in 2221, because then there was no way Scotty could ever have beamed his beagle away. Kennelly (talk) 16:32, March 14, 2016 (UTC) :A) this would be better stated on the talk page of the article rather than somewhere it's going to be lost. :B) Since the birth year of Scott is completely illogical and impossible for this to have happened, why not push it to the year of the split? :The big issue I have here is that there's no firm backing up of this material in a logical way with an actual CITEABLE date. The only firm date we have in there is 2192. Could we footnote that to a BG note about the transwarp beaming thing? Sure. But I dislike the current presentation of a random date. -- sulfur (talk) 16:36, March 14, 2016 (UTC) ::The sidebar doesn't replace the article. Unless there's an in-universe bit of text and a citation on this, it's not a "hard" fact. - 17:46, March 14, 2016 (UTC) More categories This is both a thank you for supporting and commenting on my prior category suggestions, and a request that you check out my newer ones. I wish there was a way to get more people to visit that page and the merge/move/split page more often. --LauraCC (talk) 18:55, March 14, 2016 (UTC) :While input would be nice, remember that silence is consensus and the only difference between direct support and no opposition for categories is . - 19:01, March 14, 2016 (UTC) I actually didn't know that. It's just I hate to make deletion work for someone. --LauraCC (talk) 19:11, March 14, 2016 (UTC) :This is the acceptiable kind of deletion work, because it falls under the speedy deletion guideline. :) - 19:15, March 14, 2016 (UTC) That being said, I'll wait for most of these and see if your supports cause someone else to raise an issue. --LauraCC (talk) 19:17, March 14, 2016 (UTC) "Archer" My issue with this being a general redirect... is that it now opens up "McCoy", "Kirk", "Picard", etc as redirects to the "main" people. With it as an RD to the alternate reality link... it doesn't. Either that, or we simply replace it with the disambig page and call it a day... -- sulfur (talk) 10:12, March 15, 2016 (UTC) :The latter works for me. - 13:29, March 15, 2016 (UTC) OK, I'll do that today then. -- sulfur (talk) 14:22, March 15, 2016 (UTC) Unnamed painters Do you by any chance know because of what policy or precedent we create articles for painters that were never mentioned but from which a painting was seen? I've been trying to dig that up while figuring out the correct vote for A.E. Housman, but without success. -- Capricorn (talk) 05:00, March 17, 2016 (UTC) :This might fall under the MacArthur "rule". There's also the which deals with identifying paintings by sight, but that doesn't deal with the painters. I think MA:COMMON is what's used to connect painters like Leonardo da Vinci to his paintings seen on screen but not directly stated or referenced as his work. I feel like there was something on this, bit I couldn't tell you where. - 06:51, March 17, 2016 (UTC) Hmm, too bad, but thanks for the reply anyway, I figured if anyone might know it it might be you. It's very hard to find the origins of these practices sometimes. Incidentally MacArthur was only kept by default, for lack of consensus either way. -- Capricorn (talk) 09:04, March 17, 2016 (UTC) Swearing in an edit summary Hi, Archduk. Just a quick note to say please don't swear in your edit summaries. Thank you. --Defiant (talk) 06:22, April 6, 2016 (UTC) Assistance required Hey Duke, I'm in need of assistance as I've added a new home media format...Could you, with all due respect, #Adjust the "Home Video Formats" template to reflect this, and while you're at it, allow for the ancient Super 8 format as well (there is at the very least one such release known, i.e. for ) #Introduce a sidebar template with another purty color for this new format...I've started an article for the first title, but had to use the Betamax template in lieu, in anticipation of a new one... Thanking you profusely in advance, --Sennim (talk) 19:43, May 14, 2016 (UTC) P.S. Would you also be kind enough to move File:Dodge Half-Ton Pickup Truck, top profile military model.jpg to , a case of mistaken identity, actually my bad....